Redstate

While I'm sure Ted is a great guy, we're really excited by Eric's campaign.

Having a veteran of both Afghanistan and Iraq heading to Congress as a defender of the war effort is something we need.

If the GOP wasn't under such a cloud of corruption dating back to last year's elections, we might be able to afford to sit around and wait for things to play out.

But you know what? Bob Ney proclaimed his innocence to the very end, Ted Stevens who is guilty as sin is proclaiming his innocence, as is Don Young, as is Renzi, as did Cunningham, and I'm sure the list goes on from there.

And the FBI didn't just raid Rep. Doolittle's office or residence or whatever looking for Hershey's kisses. Something doesn't look right, and given the political environment, we have got to rid ourselves of our lepers.

John Doolittle is a leper to the Republican Party right now and he could cost us a seat that we need to hold so that a Democrat doesn't get in there and then end up holding it for a decade - such as the case in South Dakota and North Dakota.

Heck, LIKE WHAT IS GOING ON IN THE KENTUCKY GOVERNOR'S RACE!!!

That being on the appropriations committee has hurt Doolittle's credentials is just evidence that he's not the principled conservative that we want holding the line on spending and worth going down with the ship for. John Doolittle is no John Sununu.

I would have a lot more respect for John Doolittle if he'd face fact and decline to run for re-election.

about the nasty climate for Republicans. You're right, we've largely done this to ourselves and have painted a big bullseye on our backs for not being above reproach.

With that said, does this mean that we have to throw up our arms and concede every time a Republican is accused of unethical behavior? I know the FBI has raided Doolittle's house so it doesn't look good, but I have yet to hear a compelling case that he's done anything wrong (other than have his wife do his fundraising which, while it may appear unseemly, is completely legal).

I guess I'm just saying that I think Doolittle is one of the few Republicans worth sticking up for - at least for a while. Let's don't condemn the man just because he's on the Democrats list of "suspect Republicans." If charges are brought and he's found to be guilty of a crime I'll be the first one to join you in seeking his ouster, but until then, I think his long service to the cause entitles him at least to our patience.

Well, don't forget his Chief of Staff and other staffers have already been indicted for the same thing about which he is being investigated.

Maybe I've missed something, but I've heard his staff has been subpoenaed, but not indicted. Big difference there.

Tom Coburn? Jim DeMint? John Sununu? Mike Pence? John Shadegg? Jeff Flake? yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, and yes.

John Doolittle? No.

Doolittle is a former conservative who has gone native. Time to kick him out of the reservation.

Republicans are hypersensitive to allegations of impropriety. For a variety of reasons, media bias only being the most prominent, a Republican not paying a parking ticket is far more heinous than live boys, dead girls, or $90K in a freezer for Democrats. We all know this, and so do the Democrats, Democrat leaning DAs and state AGs, and the hordes of holdover Democrats in the USDOJ. All it takes is a leak, an investigation that isn't going anywhere but which goes on as long as possible, or an indictment - a prosecutor can indict a hamburger, remember, and we have a "tainted Congressman" or candidate.

Congressman Young and Senator Stevens haven't even been charged with anything, yet you blithely pronounce them to be "guilty as sin." Guilty of what, porking? Yes, along with almost every other member of Congress, R or D. Guilty of a crime? They've not even been charged with a crime. We're our own worst enemy on this! The rule stripping Members of their committees upon indictment is simply stupid; it is a self-inflicted and often mortal wound. If you have any faith whatsoever in the prosecutorial system, especially in jurisdictions with elected DAs or AGs, I have some swamp land to talk to you about. Nifong was far from the only totally political and self-interested prosecutor in America. And look at what that jackass DA was able to do to Armey; he still hasn't produced a conviction, and I suspect never will, but he sure as Hell "tainted" then eliminated a very powerful and effective Republican leader.

Allegations of corruption that don't involve money going directly into the Member's pocket are particular susceptible to abuse. The fact that some congressional action may have redounded to the benefit of someone with whom a member is associated or from whom he/she received contributions DOES NOT mean that the action occurred BECAUSE the member has that association or received a contribution. It might have, but "after this, therefore because of this" is a definitional fallacy. Yet you advocate throwing anyone so situated under the bus - over a defintional fallacy.

Likewise, charges related to campaign finance involve a legal arcana in which anyone, anyone, can violate the law in the eyes of some prosecutor or another. So, if a Democrat prosecutor who might want to be appointed AG or a USDOJ AAG who might be thinking about being promoted by a new Democrat administration mounts an investigation or even secures an indictment from a Democrat dominated Grand Jury, DC comes to mind, we're supposed to behead our Party? That's nuts!

I'm not even willing to say that we should kick them to the curb after a trial court conviction. Let me pick the charges, choose the venue, and voir dire the panel, and I'll get you a conviction of anyone for anything. Right now because of the frenzy the FBI and the media have created here, no elected or appointed official charged with anything could get an unbiased jury and a fair trial. It is pretty easy to create that same situation most anywhere.

Undoubtedly, if a Republican member has been convicted and has exhausted appeal, he/she should either resign or be removed by the Body. However, I can easily foresee the circumstance when the Member might resign and be immediately re-elected by the homefolks - there's plenty of precedent for it. Then, of course, the body has a decision to make.

The Democrats control over half the states right now and GWB has put only the thinnest veneer of Republican appointees in USDOJ. The Democrats KNOW how to use this tool! Republican AGs and DAs are apparently too nice - or too damned dumb.

In Vino Veritas

If you think that the GOP should stand up for convicted congressmen, then...uh...I don't know quite what to say about that. I understand what you are saying, but that is political suicide.

And I'm all for them clearing their name - I'm just not in favor of them bringing the entire party and conservative movement down with them. Why can't they just decline to run for re-election so that they can commit themselves to fighting the charges, and then come back after clearing their name?

I wish Tom DeLay had made that decision earlier in his election cycle, but he made it eventually and it was the right decision. And he is truly innocent, I believe.

If the charges are so baseless that they are easily able to squash them by asking for a speedy trial, then great. But if they can't be quickly quashed, and if they can't be easily and clearly demonstrated to the public to be baseless, then they should step aside.

I do agree that Republican legal officers need to be MUCH more aggressive in bringing down corrupt Democrats.

you've obviously never had the slime machine turned on you or yours. Elected and appointed officials are just as entitled to a presumption of innocence and a fair trial as any other person charged of a crime. They should be just as able to defend themselves against libel and slander as any other person, but the USSC turned the libel laws on their heads and rendered "public figures" defenseless against unfounded charges. Purity and naivete are really attractive traits in young women, they aren't much use in politics.

In Vino Veritas

1 - If you go into politics, you've got to learn to fight the slime machine. If you can't do it effectively, then you may not be shrewd or savvy enough to serve in public office, I'm afraid.

2 - You're entitled to the presumption of innocence in regard to your legal jeopardy. You are not entitled to the presumption that the electorate should neglect charges made against you when considering whether or not to vote against you.

There is a big difference between a court of law - where legal issues are decided - and the court of public opinion - where elections are decided.

The presumption of innocence is in order to protect people from losing their liberty - not in order to protect them from losing a seat in Congress.

We cannot give GOP congressmen every single courtesy that the legal system should give them in a court of law. The court of public opinion is much less forgiving than the court of law, and that is as it should be.

I give through Club for Growth whenever possible and donate to all of their endorsed candidates every month. It's not a lot, but it's something. And they know that it's coming to them because they are expected to be fiscally conservative stalwarts in Congress. That means a lot to me.

Bob Schaeffer is on that list.

Here's his RightRoots link: http://www.rightroots.com/orders/search.aspx?iefix=58e12440-0757-4dec-87...
This entry should probably go back on top for awhile.

Unfortunately, there were recently enough guilty Republican congressmen that the innocent ones already start with two strikes against them.

For the time being - and probably for the next decade - we simply cannot afford to have tainted congressmen with strong hints of impropriety run for re-election. It's just swimming upstream.

In 2008, the political environment for Republicans is simply too toxic for the GOP to have to expend political resources in order to shore up what should be safe districts for Republican congressmen with ethical clouds hanging over them.

We have got to reclaim the good government title and the fiscal conservative title that brought us to power in 1994.

is that all it takes is a crooked DA in someones home district to trump up charges against a Representative and that Rep is suddenly "tainted."

I agree with you that the Party needs to run clean and honest candidates, but we also need to guard against eating our own at the command of the Democrats!

A - the GOP didn't have so many truly guilty politicians in the last cycle, and look like they have some more shaping up this cycle, or

B - the party had cracked down on the guilty for their improper conduct when it had arisen. If the part had quickly thrown the SOBs overboard last cycle instead of circling the wagons so that they could wait until the very end to go down in a ball of flames, then the party could presently afford to extend more courtesy to less obviously invalid charges.

This is the price that the GOP is paying for tolerating corruption in the recent past. And while Democrats might deserve it more, Republicans still deserve it also.

As I said, there is currently blood in the water that is clouding the Republicans' image, and they will not restore their credibility with the electorate until they clearly demonstrate that they will not tolerate it.

In order to do that, they have to very strongly cast aside vulnerable Republican candidates before they get to the months and weeks running up to the election to find out that the selfish SOB has been lying to them all along and tanks the election.

Guess what? They're not going to be around to clean up the political mess. They'll be in jail.

for us. Better yet, let's just all become Democrats; that'll keep them from saying bad things about us.

The most damaging ones are those that do something which is inappropriate but not illegal, Foley's pages, prostitutes, pandering, affairs, and the like. Clearly, Foley should have been thrown under the bus very early on, people knew about it and covered for him until it all got blown. The caucus should have some fair and regular process by which it deals with such matters. If a member is engaging in a bad act, the member should be disciplined up to and including expulsion from the caucus or from the body.

Conduct that may also be a crime is much more problematic and I laid out my sentiments on that above.

Hopefully, you're not a Party officer and your "off with their heads at the first rumor" attitude has no influence beyond whatever persuasive power it might have here.
In Vino Veritas

Expectations have been set high for Egland. I hope he meets them. He surely will be a better candidate than Doolittle.

I gave my $25 donation. :-)

Egland in CA04, Oganowski in MA01, Sununu, Shaffer, Andrew Harris in MD01, and the Club for Growth PAC. It's all starting to get kind of expensive! haha. Sure hope it's worth it.

It's regretful that you presume no one could defend Doolittle without being part of some spin machine. I'm not ashamed of my relationship to Doolittle's office, nor am I trying to hide it. As I said in my original post, I do know the man personally. And while I've never worked directly for him, I am a former congressional staffer who worked closely with him and his office on a number of issues for many years. Should that personal knowledge of the man discredit my perspective? I don't think so. It's actually precisely because I do know him personally that I want to give the guy some breathing room. Everything I saw for over five years in my interaction with the guy and his staff is that they were honest, hard-working individuals who tried to do the right thing. Now it's entirely possible that mistakes were made and I may find myself disappointed very soon. But in the meantime, until there are more facts on the table that would lead me to believe he did something wrong, I'm going to continue saying that I think he's getting a raw deal and urging others to take a breath before throwing him over board.

If ultimately I'm wrong then I'll be right there with you in supporting Egland or whoever else becomes the Republican nominee. But I don't think its fair for you to cast aspersions on me or other defenders of Doolittle simply because we're not as quick to rush to judgement on a man who has spent many years honorably representing his district and trying to advance the conservative cause.